So where is the 7th Cavalry!!

We recently received a most disturbing communication from a member concerning Alcoholics Anonymous in the Los Angeles area (US). A whole catalogue of incidents were detailed (in some cases including dates and locations) which in some way related to the conduct of AA members, and most of which would fall into the category of serious criminal acts (including murder and rape). Evidently such cases should always be reported to the appropriate authorities in the first instance so that an investigation might ensue, arrests be made, and, where the evidence allows, prosecutions follow. From our point of view, and where this conduct is proven, such behaviour is utterly repugnant in any context, but when it is associated with AA it has the further impact of bringing us into disrepute thereby undermining our reputation as being a place of security for those who come to us for assistance. Our reporter identified the measures they and others had taken to tackle these serious issues which included notifying the General Service Office in New York as well as the local service structures. It would seem that the responses they received were less than satisfactory. To their credit they have themselves been active in seeking to raise the profile of this situation as well as taking practical steps to ensure that newcomers to our fellowship are protected. Clearly this chimes with aacultwatch's own efforts in this area (although to date we have no evidence that this degree of criminality is associated with any particular cult group in Great Britain). However we would take this opportunity to remind you of the Midtown groups (again the US – and which present an unmistakeable cult profile) where the local service structure failed largely to deal with the problem (and as far as we are aware continue to remain inactive when dealing with these rogue elements). Our reporter identifies a number of factors contributing to this state of affairs which we paraphrase below:

1) A poorly co-ordinated local service structure with insufficient GSR representation to ensure that such anti-social conduct is reported, exposed and then dealt with ie. a lack of transparency and accountability.
2) The court referral system where – and especially in the US – individuals are required to attend AA meetings as part of their sentencing. This results, in some instances, in completely inappropriate referrals being made (ie. individuals who are not alcoholics at all (using any generally accepted definition of the condition)) and/or are unwilling participants and therefore entirely hostile towards AA and engage thereafter in anti-social behaviour causing disruption to AA meetings ie. AA is being used as an inexpensive “dumping ground” by the court system. We have argued elsewhere that the “chit” system leaves itself wide open to abuse and moreover our participation in this form of sentencing is a breach of our own traditions.
3) The failure of the AA collectively - nationally and internationally – and through its respective conferences – to address these issues. The GB conference has issued a set of guidelines in relation to “bullying” within meetings but these are only effective insofar as members and groups are willing to enforce them.
4) Sexual predation specifically is widely reported in the above communication (or 13 stepping as it is referred to within the fellowship). We are not talking here about “boy meets girl and falls in love” (and other variations on this) or even – more commonly - “boy meets girl and falls in lust” but rather a deliberate and serial targetting of vulnerable AA members by “predators” (of both sexes). Even the term “13 Stepping” has in our view the effect of trivialising what in some instances might otherwise be termed “constructive rape”.

We would argue that with reference to the above the single common factor which determines whether this conduct continues or is eliminated (or at least minimised) is whether AA members, acting singly or in groups, are willing to take responsibility for ensuring that every new person coming to our fellowship is not subjected to any form of abuse whatsoever. Too frequently we hear people complaining “Why doesn't York do something?” (in the case of Great Britain), or “Why doesn't intergroup do something?” The fact is that these elements of the service structure can do no more than offer guidance; they have absolutely no powers of enforcement. We would emphasise here that the AA pledge should not be taken as a mere form of words; it means what it says: “I am responsible” - it does NOT say: “Someone else is responsible”. We would urge members to act where any such abuse is going on. In the case of criminal activity this should ALWAYS be reported to the police and as soon as possible (incidentally there exists a legal obligation to do so). In other situations of a non-criminal nature sexual predators, bullies (cult or otherwise) etc may simply be outed. Expose them for what they are. Do NOT collude with them or give them space to continue with their abuse both of members and of the fellowship. Their actions are depriving newcomers of the right to recover and to live free of this deadly disease. Finally: there is NO 7th Cavalry to come to the rescue at the last minute – only you!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)